Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Permissibility of marking of final report under Section 173(2) in toto of another crime by the defense side - Main points and insights:
Generally, the final report (or charge sheet) under Section 173(2) is considered a comprehensive document prepared by the Investigating Officer (IO) that includes all evidence and materials collected during investigation. It is meant to be the basis for the trial, and the defense has the right to access and challenge its contents ["Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan VS State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Madras"] ["GOKUL @ GOKULA KRISHNAN, vs STATE BY, - Madras"].
The law recognizes that final reports are not always complete or fully accurate, and provisions under Section 173(8) allow for further investigation even after the submission and acceptance of the final report. This indicates that additional evidence or documents can be sought or filed subsequently, but typically under the court's permission or direction ["Asha, W/o. Antony @ Sibichan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS HEMENDHRA REDDY - Supreme Court"] ["JEYASEELAN vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"].
The marking of documents not part of the original final report, especially if they relate to another crime or are introduced belatedly by the defense, is generally not permissible unless the court permits such marking or the documents are relevant and admissible under law. The courts have emphasized that the prosecution's evidence should be complete at the time of final report submission, and any additional evidence should be produced through proper procedures, not by marking unrelated or new documents during trial ["M.PRAKASH vs State by - Madras"] ["M. Palani vs The Sub Inspector of Police - Madras"].
The courts have clarified that the defense cannot in toto mark or rely on documents outside the scope of the final report unless the court allows it, and the defense’s attempt to do so without proper procedural compliance is likely to be rejected. The courts have also rejected the practice of marking documents that are not part of the final report or are related to other crimes or investigations, unless specifically permitted ["Jeyaseelan VS State - Madras"] ["SHELCY vs DETECTIVE INSPECTOR - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Based on the legal provisions and judicial precedents, marking of the final report in toto of another crime by the defense during a criminal trial is generally not permissible unless the court grants permission or the documents are relevant and admissible under law. The final report is intended to be a complete and final compilation of evidence at the time of submission, and belated marking of unrelated or additional documents without court approval undermines procedural fairness ["Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan VS State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Madras"] ["GOKUL @ GOKULA KRISHNAN, vs STATE BY, - Madras"].
The provisions under Sections 173(5) and 173(8) Cr.P.C. support the idea that further investigation or evidence can be introduced post-final report, but such steps require judicial approval and are not intended for the defense to unilaterally mark or introduce new evidence during trial in toto.
Therefore, the marking of the final report in toto of another crime by the defense side, without proper procedural approval, is not permissible under the law. The courts emphasize adherence to procedural fairness, proper evidence submission, and the court’s discretion in allowing additional evidence or documents ["Asha, W/o. Antony @ Sibichan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["JEYASEELAN vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"].
References:- ["Gokul @ Gokula Krishnan VS State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chennai - Madras"]- ["GOKUL @ GOKULA KRISHNAN, vs STATE BY, - Madras"]- ["Asha, W/o. Antony @ Sibichan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS HEMENDHRA REDDY - Supreme Court"]- ["M.PRAKASH vs State by - Madras"]- ["M. Palani vs The Sub Inspector of Police - Madras"]- ["Jeyaseelan VS State - Madras"]- ["SHELCY vs DETECTIVE INSPECTOR - Kerala"]
In the intricate world of criminal trials, evidence plays a pivotal role. One intriguing question often arises: whether marking of final report u/s.173(2) in toto of another crime by the defence side in a criminal trial is permissible? This issue touches on the admissibility of police final reports under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, particularly when introduced by the defense from a related or separate crime. While final reports are foundational documents, their use—especially in full form by the defense—requires careful legal scrutiny.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be taken as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 173(2) CrPC mandates that the officer-in-charge of a police station submit a final report after investigation, detailing findings on whether an offense appears committed and the culpability of the accused. This report sets the criminal law in motion and serves as a crucial procedural document. However, it is not substantive evidence per se but can corroborate other admissible evidence. 00500048826
Courts have consistently held that a complete and properly prepared final report is admissible in trials. Its probative value hinges on compliance with statutory requirements, including accompanying documents under Section 173(5) CrPC, such as witness statements, scientific reports, and seized items. CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES VS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2015 5 Supreme 358
The defense marking a final report in toto (in full) from another crime raises unique concerns. Generally, such reports are admissible if complete, but their relevance to the current trial must be established. The Supreme Court has clarified that marking a document without objection does not prove its contents; it merely allows use for corroboration or contradiction, subject to scrutiny. REPUBLIC OF INDIA VS SAMRAT GUPTA - 1997 0 Supreme(Ori) 264
In practice, defense may seek to introduce it to show inconsistencies in prosecution's case or prior exoneration. For instance, draft final reports absolving an accused have been deemed necessary for fair trial, emphasizing the prosecution's duty for fair play. K. Sivamani VS State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3194 The court in that case directed production, noting, The draft final reports were necessary for the trial and not confidential. K. Sivamani VS State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3194
However, free use by defense is restricted. As held, The free use thereof is not permissible under defence. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596 This prevents fishing expeditions or roving inquiries, ensuring trials remain focused. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596
For marking to hold weight, the report must be complete. Section 173(5) requires attachment of all relevant documents. Absence may not vitiate proceedings but impacts the accused's rights, like receiving copies under Section 207 CrPC. CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES VS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2015 5 Supreme 358
Judgments stress: The report must be accompanied by all documents contemplated under Section 173(5) to be considered complete for the purpose of taking cognizance. CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES VS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2015 5 Supreme 358 Incomplete reports can be challenged, though proceedings may continue if procedurally sound.
Relatedly, when accused are on bail or absconding, details must be notified in the report. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596 Further, filing one final report typically closes proceedings against arrayed accused; reserving further investigation for select individuals via second reports is impermissible. Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj VS Gopan S/o. Manual - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 384 The investigating officer cannot reserve his right to further investigate a crime against the petitioner alone and file a second final report at a later stage. Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj VS Gopan S/o. Manual - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 384
Key rulings affirm cautious admissibility:
Police reports as corroborative tools: Not substantive but usable with other evidence. Mere marking doesn't admit contents as proof. REPUBLIC OF INDIA VS SAMRAT GUPTA - 1997 0 Supreme(Ori) 26400500048826
No roving inquiries: Defense cannot demand prosecution documents prematurely or conduct mini-trials at charge-framing. A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiry. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596
Further investigation limits: Post-173(2) reports, additional ones under 173(8) must cover new evidence only. Contrary reports' acceptability is for the trial court. Jiji Thomson VS State of Kerala - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1570Jiji Thomson VS State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 9
Fair trial rights: Accused entitled to relevant reports, but not unfettered access to police diaries. Non-supply of relied-upon documents doesn't vitiate trial if substantially compliant. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596
In cases involving absconding accused, trials proceed on merits without presuming co-accused acquittals bind them, absent Section 299 CrPC evidence. Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj VS Gopan S/o. Manual - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 384
Marking a full final report from another crime by defense may be permissible if:- Relevant to contradict prosecution.- Complete with Section 173(5) documents.- No objection raised, though proof requires further evidence.
Risks include:- Irrelevance objections, leading to exclusion.- Perception of delay tactics.- Court scrutiny for abuse of process, as in quashing summons based on flawed reports. AJAY KHANDELWAL VS STATE - 2018 Supreme(Del) 2516
Prosecutors must ensure completeness to fortify cases; defense should object timely to inadmissible markings.
Exceptions arise in further investigations under 173(8), but only for new evidence. Authority for such lies with the court, not complainants. SHELCY vs DETECTIVE INSPECTOR - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35694
Non-mandatory interpretation of 173(5) allows curing irregularities if trial is substantially fair. However, denial of key documents hampers confrontation rights. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596
In summary, while permissible under conditions, marking such reports demands strategic caution. Judicial emphasis remains on fairness, completeness, and evidence-based trials. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:- CHANDRA BABU @ MOSES VS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2015 5 Supreme 358, REPUBLIC OF INDIA VS SAMRAT GUPTA - 1997 0 Supreme(Ori) 264, 00500048826, K. Sivamani VS State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3194, Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596, Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj VS Gopan S/o. Manual - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 384, Jiji Thomson VS State of Kerala - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1570, Jiji Thomson VS State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 9, AJAY KHANDELWAL VS STATE - 2018 Supreme(Del) 2516, SHELCY vs DETECTIVE INSPECTOR - 2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35694
This post is for informational purposes only and reflects general legal principles from cited precedents.
#CrPC173, #CriminalTrial, #LegalEvidence
inadvertently could not be filed before the Trial Court at the time of filing the final report. ... The learned Senior Counsel would further argue that Section 173(5) and (8) of the Code does not contemplate any such exercise of filing documents belatedly after two years of filing the final report, under Section 173(2) of the Code. ... In the present case, the issue is, whether the trial Court can give permission t....
two years of filing the final report, under Section 173(2) of the Code. ... Whether the prosecution can file a particular document before the Court after submitted the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is the question raised in this petition and for which the provisions of Section 173 ... to a report forwarded under Sub- section (2). ... In the present case, the issue is, #HL_ST....
In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under S.173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. ... (ii) Whether the District Police Chief, Kottayam, could have ordered the further investigation pursuant to which the second final report was filed? ... Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is....
No. 9751 of 2021 by the learned Magistrate by which the learned Magistrate had rejected the objection raised by the petitioner to marking of 5 documents by the prosecution which were not part of the documents filed along with the final report. 2. ... (Crime No. 31 of 2019) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to set aside the order dated 17.11.2025 in Objection Memo dated 17.11.2025 in C.C. ... before marking the sam....
(2) The officer-in-charge of the police station forwarding the final report of any investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, shall file in Court along with such report, as many copies of such report and Section 207 of the Code as there are accused ... Act at Chennai and may be pleased to direct the prosecution to produce the draft Final Report of I.O.No.1 (PW31) dated 27.10.2015 and draft #HL_STA....
However, the question before this Court is whether sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation after the Magistrate has accepted a final report (closure report) under sub section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC. ... of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. ... In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after th....
On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, two witnesses are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3. 9. ... 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side?” 16. My finding on the above points is in “negative” for the following reasons: 17. ... Respondent No.2 who is....
If the accused is on bail that fact will be notified in the final report submitted under S. 173 (2). Therefore, the statutory requirements of the report under S. 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details therein prescribed are included in the report. ... The free use thereof is not permissible under defence. ... 89. In case Mukund Lal v. ... It is not permissible at this very stage of ....
(Crime No.82/2015) .. ... trial. ... In this Case, the additional witness was not shown as a prosecution witness in the final report and the document that is relied upon was not filed along with the report. ... At this stage, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to examine a new witness, not shown as a witness in the final report, in order to mark a complaint given to him by P.W.1 and this complaint also does not form part of the #HL....
Authority is not conferred on the defacto complainant to seek for further investigation under Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The authority to order further investigation is the court where a report under Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 is filed. ... S.C.No.983/2017 is the case registered from the aforesaid crime after filing of the final report. The Court of Sessions, North Paravur seized of the final report and it is pending....
Despite the fact that the petitioner was absconding, he should have been arrayed as an accused in the final report, which the investigating officer failed to do. The investigating officer cannot reserve his right to further investigate a crime against the petitioner alone and file a second final report at a later stage. 6. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that the filing of the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. in a crime would result in closing of the proceedings against all persons arrayed as accused and that can only be one final report in a criminal....
No. 4 instead of Col. No. 2. The present report is in no way concerned with regard to other accused persons who are already facing trial. No. 2 of the final report/ chargesheet u/s 173 CR.P.C. Therefore, the name of Ajay Khandewal is mentioned in col. However, inadvertently his name was mentioned in Col.
Now the Section is amended and substituted by Act 15 of 2013 with effect from 25.11.2012 published in Kerala Gazette Ext.No.693 dated 7.3.2013. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (18 of 2001), the Government of Kerala hereby authorise the Revenue Divisional Officers, Tahsildars, Deputy Tahsildars, Superintendents of Police, the Deputy Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers to exercise the power to make a complaint in writing in respect of any offence punishable under the said Act.....
In State v. Gopakumar, 1988 (1) KLT 924, this Court held that additional report of further investigation made under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C must be solely regarding such evidence which was not collected, or which was not available earlier when the final report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C was submitted. When there is a definite final report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C, and when there is a contrary or inconsistent additional final report of further investigation made under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, the trial court will have to decide whether the additional report is acc....
When there is a definite final report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C, and when there is a contrary or inconsistent additional final report of further investigation made under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, the trial court will have to decide whether the additional report is acceptable, or whether the second report contrary to the initial final report will have any value or acceptability. The legal position as regards the value and acceptability of such a contrary or inconsistent additional final report of further investigation was settled by this Court long back in 1988.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
